Cinematograph Act 1952: Detailed Analysis

The Cinematograph Act 1952 is an important piece of legislation in India ruling the certification, regulation and exhibition of cinematographic films. The Act was introduced to regulate the screening of films and ensure that they adhere to societal norms, the Act primarily focuses on public morality, decency, and national security. The Act set up the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) which is responsible for examining and certifying films before their public exhibition. Over the years, amendments have been introduced to modernize the Act and address evolving concerns such as piracy and unauthorized recordings. Explore other important Bare Acts.

Download Cinematograph Act 1952

Overview of Cinematograph Act 1952

The Cinematograph Act 1952 is a legal framework which rules the certification and exhibition of films in India. The objective of Act is to create a balance between freedom of expression and public order by ensuring that films adhere to ethical, moral and security considerations. The Act applies to both the production and exhibition of films and enables Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) the power to control screenings in public.

Scheme of Cinematograph Act 1952

The Cinematograph Act 1952 is categorised into different chapters each addressing distinct aspects of film certification, exhibition and regulation. The following table depicts an overview of chapters and sections under Act.

Section	Title
Section 1	Short title, extent, and commencement
Section 2	Definitions
Section 3	Board of Film Certification
Section 4	Examination of films
Section 5	Advisory panels
Section 6	Revisional powers of the Central Government
Section 7	Penalties for contraventions
Section 8	Power to make rules
Section 9	Power to exempt
Section 10	Cinematograph exhibitions to be licensed
Section 11	Licensing authority
Section 12	Restrictions on powers of licensing authority
Section 13	Power of Central Government or local authority to suspend exhibition of films
Section 14	Penalties for contravention of exhibition regulations
Section 15	Power to revoke or suspend licence
Section 16	Power to make rules
Section 17	Power to exempt
Section 18	Repeal

The Cinematograph Act 1952 provides an exhaustive structure for controlling films in India. It covers several aspects such as certification, licensing and fines for violations. The Act ensure that films comply to moral, ethical and security standards and also protects creative freedom and public interest. The following are the features of Act:

Film Certification System: Sections 3-6A of Cinematograph Act 1952

The Cinematograph Act 1952 states that every film intended for public exhibition must be certified by Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Films are categorized into U (Universal), UA (Parental Guidance for 7+, 13+, 16+), A (Adult only), and S (Restricted to specific professions or groups). Certification ensures that films adhere to ethical and moral standards while balancing creative freedom.

Guidelines for Film Certification: Section 5B of Cinematograph Act 1952

The CBFC under Section 5B of Cinematograph Act 1952 examines films based on their content, ensuring they do not violate public order, morality, decency, or national security. Films containing objectionable material can be denied certification, modified, or classified under restrictive categories.

Provisions Against Unauthorized Recording and Exhibition: Sections 6AA & 6AB of Cinematograph Act 1952

The Cinematograph Act 1952 explicitly prohibits piracy by criminalizing unauthorized recording, copying, and screening of films. Violation of these provisions can lead to imprisonment up to three years and a fine up to ten lakh rupees.

Regulation of Cinema Halls and Licensing: Sections 10-12 of Cinematograph Act 1952

The Cinematograph Act 1952 ensures that all cinema halls and exhibition venues operate only with a valid license issued by the appropriate authority. Licensing requirements ensure public safety and compliance with local laws.

Powers of the Central Government: Section 6 & Section 13 of Cinematograph Act 1952

The Government retains the authority to revoke, suspend, or modify film certifications in the interest of public safety under Section 6 and Section 13 of Cinematograph Act 1952. It can also direct a film to be re-examined or impose additional restrictions on its exhibition.

Penalties for Violations: Section 7 & Section 14 of Cinematograph Act 1952

Section 7 and Section 14 of Cinematograph Act 1952 provides that any unauthorized exhibition of films without proper certification can lead to severe penalties, including imprisonment and heavy fines. The Act also penalizes exhibitors who fail to adhere to certification restrictions, such as allowing minors to watch adult-rated films.

Appellate Mechanism: Section 5C of Cinematograph Act 1952

Section 5C of Cinematograph Act 1952 states that if a filmmaker disagrees with the CBFC’s decision, they can appeal to the High Court, which has the authority to review and revise the certification.

Power to Suspend Exhibition of Films: Section 13 of Cinematograph Act 1952

According to Section 13 of Cinematograph Act 1952 the Central Government, local authorities, or district magistrates can suspend the screening of any film if it is likely to cause public unrest.

Exemptions and Special Provisions: Section 9 of Cinematograph Act 1952

According to Section 9 of Cinematograph Act 1952 the Government has the authority to exempt certain films from certification requirements especially those for educational or scientific purposes.

The Cinematograph Act 1952, governs film certification and public exhibition in India. The Courts have addressed different issues regarding film censorship, artistic expression and regulatory oversight. The following landmark judgments shows legal interpretations of Act:

Raj Kapoor vs. Laxman (1979)

In Raj Kapoor vs. Laxman (1979), the Supreme Court held that a certificate under Section 5A of Cinematograph Act 1952 provides legal justification for public exhibition but does not grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for obscenity. The filmmaker must still participate in legal proceedings if challenged.

Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon (1996)

The film Bandit Queen (1994) was produced by Bobby Art International, depicted the real-life struggles of Phoolan Devi, including instances of gang rape and brutality. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) initially agreed to grant an ‘A’ certificate under Cinematograph Act 1952 but required the removal of explicit scenes. However the Film Appellate Tribunal set aside this condition and allowed the film to be screened without modifications.

A petition was later filed in the Delhi High Court, arguing that the film degraded women and violated constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The High Court ruled that certain scenes were indecent and ordered modifications. The Supreme Court set aside ruling.

Unfreedom (2015)

The movie Unfreedom was directed by Raj Amit Kumar. It was a thriller film that explored same-sex relationships and a terrorism narrative. The CBFC including its Examining Committee, Revising Committee and Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), denied certification under Cinematograph Act 1952, arguing that it could incite social unrest due to its themes of homosexuality and religious extremism. However, the film was later released on Netflix, highlighting the challenges of censorship in the digital age. The filmmaker used the ban as a marketing tool and condemned the conservative stance of board.

Inshallah, Football (2010)

The documentary depicts Kashmiri boy aspire to become a footballer but was denied passport due to alleged militancy connections. It showed challenges of Kashmiris of insurgency and political restrictions. The CBFC rejected certification under Cinematograph Act 1952 as it could possibly provoke unrest.

Manisha Koirala-II vs. Shashilal Nair (2002)

In Manisha Koirala-II vs Shashilal Nair (2002) the Bombay High Court ruled that the actress was aware of the film’s content, and her objections were addressed. There was no evidence of defamation, malicious falsehood, or invasion of privacy.

Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Sanjay Leela Bhansali (2017)

In Manohar Lal Sharma vs Sanjay Leela Bhansali (2017) the Supreme Court rejected petition seeking an FIR against the filmmaker for exhibiting film abroad without CBFC approval under Cinematograph Act 1952. The court found the petition to be an abuse of public interest litigation, as the film was still under CBFC review.

Union of India vs. Motion Picture Association (1999)

In Union of India vs Motion Picture Association (1999) the Supreme Court upheld validity of government requirement directing cinemas to screen approved short films before main features. The Court held that it did not infringe free speech

Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy vs. Sushil Ansal (2017)

In Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy vs. Sushil Ansal (2017), the Supreme Court refused to allow a reduction in the sentence of the accused solely on the basis of fine payment, considering the severity of the fire tragedy caused by violations in cinema safety regulations.

Conclusion

The Cinematograph Act 1952 regulates India’s film industry by balancing freedom of expression with social responsibility. The act has changed through various amendments, challenges like censorship debates, digital piracy and OTT regulations necessitate further reforms. As cinema continues to be a powerful tool of storytelling and influence maintains a transparent and progressive certification process remains crucial for upholding artistic integrity while protecting societal values.